Jesus was human, just human, while among us here on earth. He enjoyed a drink, enjoyed a party, loved a fish fry, joked with the girls. At that time it would have been very strange had he not been married.

From a theological perspective I'd say it is a non-issue, not more than a footnote.

i'll buy the jamie lee curtis as bullshit, but i always remembered from class that any kind of abnormality resulted in a female.

Nah, IIRC it is that all females are abnormal. :P

But trying to head back towards the topic, I still don't see what the big deal is or why anyone is concerned about the possibility that Jesus was married or even had kids. While alive on earth Jesus was human, he loved, he laughed, likely stubbed his toe and cursed when he did it. He drank, he danced, he partied, played practical jokes on his friends, went fishing, to the beach, camping and to school. He died, and was buried. Human.

Any children he had would be human. Just human. Like you, like me, like any other human.

NJ, have you studied the Talmud? Have you read it or are you just going by what some apologetic site is telling you? The reason I ask is that I have read the Talmud, and what you are quoting is taken totally out of context. That particular section of the Talmud is a discussion on what constitutes evidence, what constitutes defense, who bears the costs in a trial, what can be used as defense. It is not a history of Jesus, was never even meant as some assertion that Jesus lived, and in context, is but one example of many being discussed. Many of them a just names used at random and have no particular referenance to any one living or dead. They are examples. Nothing more and not even pertinent to the discussion being held.

How do they [the judges] know?29 — Abaye said: Two Rabbis are sent with him; if his statement has substance, he is [brought back]; if not, he is not [brought back]. But why not do so in the first place?30 — Because being terrified, he cannot say all he wishes.31

MISHNAH. IF THEN THEY FIND HIM INNOCENT, THEY DISCHARGE HIM; BUT IF NOT, HE GOES FORTH TO BE STONED, AND A HERALD PRECEDES HIM [CRYING]: SO AND SO, THE SON OF SO AND SO, IS GOING FORTH TO BE STONED BECAUSE HE COMMITTED SUCH AND SUCH AN OFFENCE, AND SO AND SO ARE HIS WITNESSES. WHOEVER KNOWS ANYTHING IN HIS FAVOUR, LET HIM COME AND STATE IT.

GEMARA. Abaye said; It must also be announced: On such and such a day, at such and such and hour, and in such and such a place [the crime was committed], in case there are some who know [to the contrary], so that they can come forward and prove the witnesses Zomemim.32

AND A HERALD PRECEDES HIM etc. This implies, only immediately before [the execution], but not previous thereto.33 [In contradiction to this] it was taught: On the eve of the Passover Yeshu34 was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!35 — Ulla retorted: 'Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defence could be made? Was he not a Mesith [enticer], concerning whom Scripture says, Neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him?36 With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government [or royalty, i.e., influential].'

It specifically says "AND A HERALD PRECEDES HIM etc. This implies, only immediately before [the execution], but not previous thereto.33 [In contradiction to this] it was taught:"

it was taught

"it was taught"

All they are doing is pulling an example from literature, it is not a statement of historical significance. Note that it is also being used as an example in contrast to the firts example. The discussion is on the law, on procedure, not about whether or not Jesus was an actual historical character, much less whether or not he was married.